PDA

View Full Version : $500K donated to Ariz. to defend law


bronclvr
07-08-2010, 02:42 PM
PHOENIX Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thusday by The Associated Press.

The donations, 88 percent of which came from through the defense fund's website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer's office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government's filing.

Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and nearly 2,000 came from within Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100.

The Arizona law includes a requirement that police enforcing another law must investigate the immigration status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" to believe the people are in the United States illegally.

Brewer and other supporters say the law will prompt illegal immigrants to leave the state and that state action was required by a failure of the federal government to secure the border.

Opponents say the law will promote racial profiling and is unconstitutional because regulating immigration is reserved for the federal government.

Donors contacted by the AP said they contributed because the federal government should be helping Arizona, not taking the state to court.

"Arizona needs our help," said Mary Ann Rohde, a retired municipal worker who lives in Rialto, Calif., who donated $20 with her husband. "It's a disgrace what our government is doing."

Howard E. Sanner, of Houston, said Arizona's approval of its law should help prod the federal government to act on border security to help prevent criminals and terrorists from entering the country illegally.

"It's just a mess that has to be straightened out," said Sanner, a retired clothing and linen salesman who said he supports legal immigration and donated $5 to the fund.

With the federal lawsuit, the law enacted in April and set to take effect July 29 is now the subject of six lawsuits now pending in federal court. Other plaintiffs include civil rights groups, individuals and several Arizona municipalities.

Brewer established the Governor's Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund with an executive order on May 26. Her office said the state had received about $10,000 in unsolicited donations from people in dozens of states by then.

It's unclear what the state's legal costs will be in defending the law. Snell & Wilmer, the Phoenix-based law firm representing the state in the pending challenges, told a federal judge Wednesday that its lawyers were working late into the evening to respond to all the filings in the cases.

Citing the crush of filings in the case,

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has imposed limits on the size of so-called "friend of the court" briefs filed by groups in support or opposition to the law.

Brewer hired the private lawyers to represent the state even before the Democratic attorney general, Terry Goddard, agreed to Brewer's demand to withdraw from the state's defense. He had opposed the legislation but said he was willing to do his duty to defend the state law.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIgRH03YwjRU7T-qizFzla-bE6hgD9GR35NO0

OBF1
07-08-2010, 03:08 PM
I wonder how much $$$ Obama will accept from the mexican drug lords

spelling edit ROFL!

Drek
07-08-2010, 05:57 PM
Great, so a bunch of people do not understand the differences between state and federal powers.

I'm a big state's rights guy myself, but if you want to make this a state by state issue then you should vote for your federal representation based on that, not throw up grossly illegal laws in one state and hope they stick.

But of course, if you make this a state issue you'll just have a bunch of border hoppers shooting to cross into interior states that to date haven't had the need to police as heavily, making it a major national issue, at which point everyone will whine for federal intervention.

Who am I to speak up though. Arizona is after all the home state of John McCain, a guy who once publicly said that American born citizens would absolutely refuse to do the work illegals do even if they where paid union scale. Maybe Arizona should take a closer look at those aspects of their state and ask if they're truly doing everything they can in choosing representation that work within their state's rightful powers, or is their representation just using illegals as a scape goat for their own inadequacies?

Irish Stout
07-08-2010, 06:06 PM
Honestly - I would love to be on either end of this legal battle as a lawyer. 1) Great classic constitutional arguments on both ends; 2) Case will go down in history as one of the great states rights/4th Amendment cases ever and will be reviewed in every law school; 3) The money should pour in on this one from both sides, but really the legal fame the attorneys will get for fighting it out on both sides will pave their roads for a long time to come.

OBF1
07-08-2010, 06:08 PM
Great, so a bunch of people do not understand the differences between state and federal powers.

I'm a big state's rights guy myself, but if you want to make this a state by state issue then you should vote for your federal representation based on that, not throw up grossly illegal laws in one state and hope they stick.

But of course, if you make this a state issue you'll just have a bunch of border hoppers shooting to cross into interior states that to date haven't had the need to police as heavily, making it a major national issue, at which point everyone will whine for federal intervention.

Who am I to speak up though. Arizona is after all the home state of John McCain, a guy who once publicly said that American born citizens would absolutely refuse to do the work illegals do even if they where paid union scale. Maybe Arizona should take a closer look at those aspects of their state and ask if they're truly doing everything they can in choosing representation that work within their state's rightful powers, or is their representation just using illegals as a scape goat for their own inadequacies?

Could you please explain to me what the meaning of this word is ???

ColoradoDarin
07-08-2010, 06:24 PM
I don't see how the Feds can prevail unless they sue rhode island too.

Blueflame
07-08-2010, 06:47 PM
I don't see how the Feds can prevail unless they sue rhode island too.

The question that's at issue is this: Do states have the right to enact legislation that contradicts or supersedes the U.S. Constitution (14th Amendment)?

In that context, I personally cannot see how the state of Arizona has much of a chance of winning the case in federal court. The Constitution will (I believe) take precedence over individual state laws (and there wouldn't be much point in having a Constitution if it didn't).

baja
07-08-2010, 06:48 PM
Honestly - I would love to be on either end of this legal battle as a lawyer. 1) Great classic constitutional arguments on both ends; 2) Case will go down in history as one of the great states rights/4th Amendment cases ever and will be reviewed in every law school; 3) The money should pour in on this one from both sides, but really the legal fame the attorneys will get for fighting it out on both sides will pave their roads for a long time to come.

I am half way expecting a border incident to add huge emotion to the already high drama.


I have a feeling we have not seen the last of "Shock & Awe" and it may not come from a direction expected.

Ugly Duck
07-08-2010, 06:52 PM
Isn't the Arizona law designed to enforce existing law against corporations & companies that hire illegal aliens? That sounds like a good idea... forcing companies to hire Americans instead of illegals. It'll reduce the unemployment rate of Americans and the illegals will have to go back home cuz they won't be able to work here any more. It'll work - good for Arizona!

Hogan11
07-08-2010, 06:52 PM
I don't see how the Feds can prevail unless they sue rhode island too.

When was the last time the Feds lost a case?

The donation is a nice, but futile gesture

Hercules Rockefeller
07-08-2010, 06:57 PM
When was the last time the Feds lost a case?

The donation is a nice, but futile gesture

Well a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled DOMA unconstitutional today, so there's one.

The Feds lose cases all the time.

baja
07-08-2010, 07:01 PM
Isn't the Arizona law designed to enforce existing law against corporations & companies that hire illegal aliens? That sounds like a good idea... forcing companies to hire Americans instead of illegals. It'll reduce the unemployment rate of Americans and the illegals will have to go back home cuz they won't be able to work here any more. It'll work - good for Arizona!


It's like all the other easy no brainer solutions the reason they are never see the light of day is power says so. See where the money is. Do you know what a huge resource all that voiceless cheap labor repersents.

Hogan11
07-08-2010, 07:04 PM
Well a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled DOMA unconstitutional today, so there's one.

Is that final? Or did the Feds appeal it yet?

Even if they lose, they tweek it up and keep coming back with it till they get their way.

BroncoLifer
07-08-2010, 07:19 PM
The question that's at issue is this: Do states have the right to enact legislation that contradicts or supersedes the U.S. Constitution (14th Amendment)?


The 14th Amendment is not even remotely the question. The issue that will be the focus is the applicability (or not) of the Supremacy Clause to the Arizona law, with maybe a teensy bit of 10th Amendment argument thrown in by AZ.

In any event, this one is definitely headed for the Supremes.

Taco John
07-08-2010, 07:20 PM
I don't like the law, but I can't condemn it. If the Feds won't do their job, and instead choose to focus on "internationalizing" the US, it's up to the States to reign them back in.

Archer81
07-08-2010, 07:24 PM
The question that's at issue is this: Do states have the right to enact legislation that contradicts or supersedes the U.S. Constitution (14th Amendment)?

In that context, I personally cannot see how the state of Arizona has much of a chance of winning the case in federal court. The Constitution will (I believe) take precedence over individual state laws (and there wouldn't be much point in having a Constitution if it didn't).


How can a federal law be constitutionally sound, but not so for states? Arizona used the language of the federal law to bolster existing state statutes. If anything, AZ using federal code to bolster their own law enforcement agencies capabilities in securing the border, and is actually a lesser offense (misdemeanor vs felony).

I believe the Fed. government will have a hard time winning this case without exposing federal law to further SC scrutiny. If the federal case is one of constitutionality for the states to engage in border security, and the state being sued used federal law to craft their own state law, it could bring questions on the constitutionality of federal statutes on the border.

Or it could be politically motivated. If California or NY had crafted such a law, would they be sued?

:Broncos:

baja
07-08-2010, 07:33 PM
[QUOTE=Taco John;2879047]I don't like the law, but I can't condemn it. If the Feds won't do their job, and instead choose to focus on "internationalizing" the US, it's up to the States to reign them back in.[/QUOTE

This issue will expose Obama and he will be a lame duck from that point on.

baja
07-08-2010, 07:38 PM
How can a federal law be constitutionally sound, but not so for states? Arizona used the language of the federal law to bolster existing state statutes. If anything, AZ using federal code to bolster their own law enforcement agencies capabilities in securing the border, and is actually a lesser offense (misdemeanor vs felony).

I believe the Fed. government will have a hard time winning this case without exposing federal law to further SC scutiny. If the federal case is one of constitutionality for the states to engage in border security, and the state being sued used federal law to craft their own state law, it could bring questions on the constitutionality of federal statutes on the border.

Or it could be politically motivated. If California or NY had crafted such a law, would they be sued?

:Broncos:

Doesn't even matter the gauntlent has been thrown. This is a power struggle with Obama's future on the line. He picked the wrong fight.

Too bad we couldn't have Obama's brain and Bushes balls running things.

Hercules Rockefeller
07-08-2010, 08:20 PM
Honestly - I would love to be on either end of this legal battle as a lawyer. 1) Great classic constitutional arguments on both ends; 2) Case will go down in history as one of the great states rights/4th Amendment cases ever and will be reviewed in every law school; 3) The money should pour in on this one from both sides, but really the legal fame the attorneys will get for fighting it out on both sides will pave their roads for a long time to come.

The suit says Arizona is in violation of the Supremacy Clause, they don't have standing to make a 4th Amendment claim. The law would need to go into effect before any individual could claim their 4th Amendment rights were violated.

Hercules Rockefeller
07-08-2010, 08:23 PM
Is that final? Or did the Feds appeal it yet?

Even if they lose, they tweek it up and keep coming back with it till they get their way.

It was a ruling in a district court today, of course it hasn't been appealed yet and it would only apply in the Massachusetts district where the case was brought.

DOMA? Tweaked a bit? Not with this Congress.

Florida_Bronco
07-08-2010, 09:04 PM
The suit says Arizona is in violation of the Supremacy Clause, they don't have standing to make a 4th Amendment claim. The law would need to go into effect before any individual could claim their 4th Amendment rights were violated.

When it goes to court, what do you think the outcome will be?

baja
07-08-2010, 09:05 PM
When it goes to court, what do you think the outcome will be?


I think they will decide that George Bush is still president.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-08-2010, 09:14 PM
Where is the federal lawsuit against San Francisco's sanctuary city policy?

Pontius Pirate
07-08-2010, 09:25 PM
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

New York vs. United States - Justice O'Connor: "Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations."

Hercules Rockefeller
07-08-2010, 11:03 PM
When it goes to court, what do you think the outcome will be?

Been way, way too long since Con Law and the Supremacy Clause.

Just reading the suit, I think a few of their arguments are a bit of a reach. The bill sponsors knew this was going to be challenged, and as has already been pointed out, a lot of the language mirrors what's already in federal statutes.

It'll get to the Supremes, but I think the law is upheld at least in this suit.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf

BroncoBuff
07-08-2010, 11:36 PM
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

New York vs. United States - Justice O'Connor: "Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations."

Sounds pretty simple, but it's not. The powers delegated to the United States are far broader than the simple words in the Constitution. Most of these powers come from three short, simple phrases therein: The Feds shall "have the power to lay and collect taxes," "shall provide for the general welfare." and "shall regulate commerce between the several states."

Those three phrases have morphed into a juggernaut, and because the pre-emption clause overrides state laws in those areas, the states are left with very little to regulate. Pre-emption is the grounds on which the feds will use to knock down the Arizona law, and it seems likely they'll win.


The O'Connor quote, you have it kinda backwards. It means the feds can't force Arizona to do their job, and they're not. The feds suck at this job, but they're not trying to get Arizona to do it for them. Congress likes the status quo, for whatever reasons.

Hercules Rockefeller
07-08-2010, 11:41 PM
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

Of course, it's not like this is followed anymore

broncocalijohn
07-08-2010, 11:56 PM
How can a federal law be constitutionally sound, but not so for states? Arizona used the language of the federal law to bolster existing state statutes. If anything, AZ using federal code to bolster their own law enforcement agencies capabilities in securing the border, and is actually a lesser offense (misdemeanor vs felony).

I believe the Fed. government will have a hard time winning this case without exposing federal law to further SC scrutiny. If the federal case is one of constitutionality for the states to engage in border security, and the state being sued used federal law to craft their own state law, it could bring questions on the constitutionality of federal statutes on the border.

Or it could be politically motivated. If California or NY had crafted such a law, would they be sued?

:Broncos:

How about the fact that California voted for medical marijuana which is in defiance of the federal law. Has California been sued by the Federal government?

broncocalijohn
07-08-2010, 11:59 PM
btw, california is the 2nd leading donor behind Arizona.

Pontius Pirate
07-09-2010, 09:04 AM
Sounds pretty simple, but it's not. The powers delegated to the United States are far broader than the simple words in the Constitution. Most of these powers come from three short, simple phrases therein: The Feds shall "have the power to lay and collect taxes," "shall provide for the general welfare." and "shall regulate commerce between the several states."

Those three phrases have morphed into a juggernaut, and because the pre-emption clause overrides state laws in those areas, the states are left with very little to regulate. Pre-emption is the grounds on which the feds will use to knock down the Arizona law, and it seems likely they'll win.


The O'Connor quote, you have it kinda backwards. It means the feds can't force Arizona to do their job, and they're not. The feds suck at this job, but they're not trying to get Arizona to do it for them. Congress likes the status quo, for whatever reasons.

Yeah, you're right about the O'Connor quote. Doesn't apply here

Rohirrim
07-09-2010, 09:28 AM
Sounds pretty simple, but it's not. The powers delegated to the United States are far broader than the simple words in the Constitution. Most of these powers come from three short, simple phrases therein: The Feds shall "have the power to lay and collect taxes," "shall provide for the general welfare." and "shall regulate commerce between the several states."

Those three phrases have morphed into a juggernaut, and because the pre-emption clause overrides state laws in those areas, the states are left with very little to regulate. Pre-emption is the grounds on which the feds will use to knock down the Arizona law, and it seems likely they'll win.


The O'Connor quote, you have it kinda backwards. It means the feds can't force Arizona to do their job, and they're not. The feds suck at this job, but they're not trying to get Arizona to do it for them. Congress likes the status quo, for whatever reasons.

The present SCOTUS has already shown that they will stand precedence on its head to create new law. I expect the same result on this one. Arizona will win.